ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02582-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mike Lehmann

Desert Remodel LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC,

License No. ROC 330213,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02582-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 15, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Mike Lehmann appeared on his own behalf. Gabriel Mirabal appeared on behalf of Respondent Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Lisa Melton appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Text message submitted by Respondent, referenced as Exhibit 1; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 330213 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Gabriel Mirabal is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

In or about May 2023, Mike Lehmann (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct an addition to Complainant’s home.

On or about March 13, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton.

On March 27, 2025, Complainant filed an addendum to the Complaint.

On April 4, 2025, Investigator Melton conducted a Jobsite Inspection. On April 23, 2025, Investigator Melton issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 2025.

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item 1: Roof not covered for multiple weeks lead to major damage to drywall inside home

Investigator’s Observation: At this inspection, Complainant showed me the following: 1) water stains and damage to ceiling area of great room, 2) water stains and damage to ceiling area of owner suite, 3) water stains on two of the three blinds in the owner’s suite, 4) two of the three blinds in the owner’s suite are inoperable and 5) alleged water damage to garage. I can substantiate that the water stains/damage to the ceiling area of the great room, water stains/damage to the ceiling area of the owner’s suite and water stains on two of the three blinds are relative to the work of the Respondent. I cannot substantiate inoperability of some of the blinds as the result of the Respondent’s work as I cannot substantiate their functionality at the time of the Respondent’s work. Further I cannot substantiate that the failing seems and peeling tape in the garage are due to the work of the Respondent as I was unable to identify any signs of water damage on the ceiling. Seem failure/peeling tape is typical to garages, carports and patios as they are not usually conditioned and/or insulated in the same manner as interior dwelling spaces.

Respondent should correct by appropriate methods:

• damage to the ceiling area of the great room,

• damage to the ceiling area of the owner’s suite

• and the two water stained blinds.

Compliance Item 6: Power to air handler needs to have a carflex 90 elbow installed to get wire into air handler

Investigator’s Observation: This concern failed permit inspection. Respondent should correct by appropriate methods this concern relative to the Heat Pump/AC System installed by Respondent.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Compliance Item 2: missing exterior clear out covers

Investigator’s Observation: Scope of work is not sufficient to determine Respondent is responsible for providing the clean out covers. Scope identifies: 1) Rough in ABS/PVC plumbing to tie into existing west wall hot water and 3" sewer. And 2) Top out plumbing per plan with PEX water supplies and ABS/PVC waste and vents. Complainant asserts that “Plumbing, electrical and HVAC trades will complete their scope of work to complete final inspections” includes the clean out covers. This item could also be interpreted to indicate that Respondent’s work should be completed to comply with final inspection as Respondent scope does not required Respondent to perform all of the plumbing work only the plumbing work identified. Insufficient evidence to substantiate that the clean out covers are part of Respondent’s scope of work.

Compliance Item 3: Plans missing

Investigator’s Observation: Not a workmanship and/or abandonment concern that can be addressed by the Registrar.

Compliance Item 4: Water meter needs to be changed to a 3⁄4” meter with a 1” supply line to the house. Will have to pay fee to the city and schedule change out

Investigator’s Observation: Scope of work is not sufficient to determine Respondent is responsible for change to water meter/supply. Scope identifies: 1) Rough in ABS/PVC plumbing to tie into existing west wall hot water and 3" sewer. And 2) Top out plumbing per plan with PEX water supplies and ABS/PVC waste and vents. Complainant asserts that “Plumbing, electrical and HVAC trades will complete their scope of work to complete final inspections” includes the meter/supply. This item could also be interpreted to indicate that Respondent’s work should be completed to comply with final inspection as Respondent scope does not required Respondent to perform all of the plumbing work only the plumbing work identified. Insufficient evidence to substantiate that the meter/supply are part of Respondent’s scope of work.

Compliance Item 5: Exterior door cannot be framed with current opening

Investigator’s Observation: This concern was address in the Complaint 2024-10754

Item #2 (compliance inspection).

All errors in original.

After the expiration of the Written Directive, Investigator Melton ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Melton forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, Complainant advised the Tribunal that the only remaining item of Complaint is Item Number 1, concerning interior drywall damage. Complainant also indicated that he was not contesting any of the items of Complaint not verified by Investigator Melton.

Investigator Melton testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Melton testified that four days prior to the May 12, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Respondent requested an extension. Complainant did not agree to an extension as Respondent had not attempted any corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Investigator Melton did not extend the period of the Written Directive and ascertained that full compliance had not be achieved. Investigator Melton further testified that Respondent did not allege a denial of access during the period of the Written Directive. Any requests for access made by Respondent after the period of the Written Directive were not required to be granted by Complainant.

Complainant testified that he agreed with Investigator Melton’s testimony, and clarified that Respondent’s May 8, 2025 request for access concerned electrical work, not interior damage repair as required by the Written Directive. The text message sent to Complainant from Respondent on May 8, 2025, read as follows:

Respondent: Hello Mike, we are gonna be over at your place tomorrow working on inside and outside electrical

Complainant: ?What inside electrical?

Respondent: Outside electrical at the ac

Complainant: Got it. I can’t be home tomorrow, so inside won’t work unfortunately

Mr. Mirabal testified that all but one item on this Written Directive were completed. Complainant had filed another complaint against Respondent and that matter is pending before the Office of Administrative Hearings. However, neither party requested that the matters be consolidated. Mr. Mirabal continuously referenced the other filed complaint during his testimony. That complaint is not the subject of the instant hearing.

Mr. Mirabal testified that Complainant told him he would obtain bids to make the necessary repairs. When Mr. Mirabal received those bids, he determined that they were exorbitant and informed Complainant that Respondent’s workers would perform the repairs. Mr. Mirabal asserted that thereafter, Complainant would not allow access to the jobsite. However, there was no credible evidence presented by Respondent to establish a denial of access. The requests for access were after the expiration of the Written Directive when Complainant was no longer required to grant access.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 26, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 330213 was first issued on August 21, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 330213 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, September 2, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lisa Melton

[email redacted]

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC

[email redacted]

Mike Lehmann

Desert Remodel, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff